Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
If that's not our place it's also not our place to be bombing other countries for human rights violations that don't contribute to the bottom line of American businesses in the hopes of changing that.
My point was that we should not envision systematic problems, particularly those which we are all party to of things that Donald Trump is somehow a keystone of, even when he is a very visible participant. Because whenever he leaves power as all leaders eventually do, those problems will very likely remain, and will be no closer to a resolution than before.
The difference between Donald Trump and the average consumer who buys clothes from The Gap or buys Apple products is akin to the difference between plantation owners and people who bought and wore cotton clothing.
At the very least, I'm not criticizing Donald Trump's involvement with sweatshops while also buying his products or staying at his resorts and hotels. If I were trying to claim that Trump taking advantage of sweatshops and foreign made steel were things to be mocked while also being a frequent guest at the Mar-a-lago or Trump Tower, then I'd definitely be a massive hypocrite.
edited 22nd Dec '16 7:33:03 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedIf that was your point you should have said so far earlier instead of doing that verbal sidestepping, Capsase.
In any case I don't actually recall that any of us were blaming Trump specifically for that? I know Kostya didn't. M84 was only pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of Trump's platform in his posts.
Sorry about being a bit roundabout, but my point was we shouldn't fall into the trap of partisan hysteria and lampoon Trump for things that a democratic administration could very easily be doing just because it's Trump; executive overreach for example is a systemic problem that has become steadily worse since the beginning of the war on terror, and will likely severely stain the legacy of the Obama administration. There are plenty of cases where people immediately jumped on something Trump said or did that was more or less business as usual in Washington. The problem in such cases isn't Trump, it's that such practices have become business as usual in Washington.
edited 22nd Dec '16 8:21:49 PM by CaptainCapsase
While it would be nice if the US could improve the livelihood of sweatshop laborers I think it's a bit impractical. Short of sanctioning the offending nations or companies into oblivion I don't think we can really do much.
You also have the problem of there always being another source of cheap labor. Suppose we help China implement these laws. Then everybody could just move to Vietnam or something. So then we go there only after Vietnam has labor laws everybody moves to Cambodia and so on. This would be a decades long endeavor and that's being optimistic.
I think it's also worth noting that we're probably going to be in the battle of our lives to make sure these practices aren't legalized in the US. It sounds callous but we don't really have the luxury of helping others when our own house is in danger of crumbling.
![]()
Obama was pretty liberal with executive orders because the Right absolutely refused to play ball. Trump has the support of congress, at least initially. It's a bit harder for him to justify.
edited 22nd Dec '16 8:24:50 PM by Kostya
![]()
Indeed, and in such cases, point out discrepancies between Trump's promises and the realities, and explain what he might have been able to do differently to fulfill such promises.
Trump will have an excuse the moment the GOP starts dithering. Alternatively, he'll just do it without informing the media, and we'll only find out about it halfway through the order being implemented. The fact of the matter is that failure of the Obama administration to dismantle the Bush era expansion of the executive power, and the increased centralization of power in the executive branch will likely be the main legacy of the Obama presidency that survives Trump.
edited 22nd Dec '16 8:27:11 PM by CaptainCapsase
The best case scenario is a low key conflict between Trump and the party that flares up every now and again rather than an outright standoff likely to end in a dramatic and decisive fashion. That would be the most effective limiter on Trump IMHO.
The less eventful a Trump Presidency is the better.
edited 22nd Dec '16 8:40:46 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
Heck, if we're really lucky Trump will start openly getting into twitter wars with Republicans. If he convinces enough supporters to not vote for them it could lead to them losing races.
We cannot afford eight years of him. I'd rather he screw up royally and get ousted in four years than limp on for eight.
edited 22nd Dec '16 8:46:03 PM by Kostya
That being said, in regards to Trump's foreign policy, I would remark that it's abundantly clear that the current NATO strategy regarding Russia isn't working, and hasn't been working since the end of the cold war. Something needs to change in that regards, because the current tensions combined with Russia's precarious global position put us at the brink of disaster.
I doubt his approach will succeed, though what exactly that will entail depends on which of his advisors dominate in that area.
Uneventful mediocrity will sink the Trump administration if the democrats can get a good candidate in 2020.
edited 22nd Dec '16 8:49:05 PM by CaptainCapsase
I don't think Trump can really be anything better than uneventful mediocrity, but that's an absolute best case scenario.
More likely I think is the mediocrity, yes, but with a handful of really big fuckups, which may or may not be visible or be considered fuckups in the eyes of the general public as opposed to just the democrat base.
Trump vows to build 'Safe Zones' in Syria, and force the Gulf States to pay for it
...
... So, Trump is going to start bombing Assad in Syria now, or what the hell?
Looking at history, the current rate of issuance of executive orders is actually fairly low, and it's absolutely nothing compared to the torrent of them issued by Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, and the presidents in between.
edited 22nd Dec '16 9:15:14 PM by Balmung
